Week 4 Post

This week’s readings all corresponded to the social services area of the nonprofit sector. The main topic of conversation was housing, or lack thereof. The articles pointed out that many families are in danger of losing their homes or living in extremely uncomfortable conditions if they do not receive some kind of assistance like that provided by programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, MAAC (Maximizing Access to Advance our Communities), and affordable housing in the Langley Park area. While these programs have supplied considerable aid, there are some programs for families and people in need that are simply not as effective. For instance, the failure of Fort Greene homeless shelter in New York City to provide inhabitants with heated and sanitary living conditions is a sad realization of the fact that not all social work is created equal.

As stated in Nonprofit Nation, many who receive the services provided by the government or by nonprofits are, “stigmatized by society and have problems other Americans would rather not know about” (81). I think this is the reason why issues like those that exist in the Fort Greene homeless shelter are repeatedly ignored. Many think of people who receive welfare, are homeless, or are unemployed as too lazy to do what they need to change their situation. However, the issue is much more complicated than that. How can one prosper if they were never given the opportunities or the tools to do so? Yes, there are many people who are in bad situations because they have made bad choices, but that is not a sufficient enough reason to place every person in the US who lives in poverty under this same umbrella of laziness and poor choices. It is important to remember that the impoverished are people with the same human needs and desires as the rest of us, thus we must remain critical of social services so that institutions like Fort Greene homeless shelter cannot slip below the radar and get away with providing sub-par care to people who are desperately in need of food, shelter, and warmth. When Lyndon B. Johnson launched his War on Poverty, I do not think that these half-hearted solutions are what he had in mind for a great American society. Providing food and shelter are important aspects of aid, however, programs that integrate job training and related services can be much more beneficial in the long term. Doing so will undoubtedly cost money, but for every person who obtains the means to support themselves, there is one less person dependant on government or nonprofit assistance. 

            Although the article about “Redeeming Value” by Diane Dietz does not deal specifically with the issue of housing, I wanted to bring it into my discussion because I found the article to be especially interesting. I think it is very cool that Terry McDonald does nonprofit differently, and with much more entrepreneurial skill: “All this makes St. Vinnie’s unlike most social service agencies that operate strictly on donations. Half of St. Vinnie’s income is business revenues — and it strives to go further down the road to profitability for the benefit of its stockholders, who are: “The poor, the low income people of this community”’. I think that McDonalds’s approach to business and “turning trash into treasure” is admirably innovative because it has big implications for a sustainable business future. He has some very progressive ideas, especially regarding the reuse and repurposing of old, thrown out materials. McDonald's success shows that not all successful business relies on the exploitation of both people and the environment. He serves as an example for those who want to work in the nonprofit sector, but are worried about having to live paycheck to paycheck; its possible to run both an environmentally and socially responsible business, while also managing to make a comfortable living, it just takes some serious drive and innovation. 


The nonprofit I am doing for my scavenger hunt assignment has a similar approach to nonprofit that St.Vincent DePaul's does. The organization is Ecotrust and is based in Portland. As stated on their website, through what they call "reliable prosperity," they address "the fundamental needs of people -- and the ecosystems that sustain them-- is the starting point for a different kind of economic prosperity that can endure generation after generation".Their website is very informational, giving a both background on the organization and its members, as well as descriptions of their different initiatives. I suggest checking it out! http://www.ecotrust.org/

The video I included is one I found that shows several clips of LBJ carrying out his goal to make it impossible to continue to ignore the American paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. It also demonstrates the power of prominent figures in society to educate and empower people.

Week 3 Post

This week’s readings brought up a number of pressing issues and valid arguments regarding the future of the nonprofit sector. In chapter 3 of O’Neill’s Nonprofit Nation, the statistics became a little redundant, but I was impressed by the message the statistics were conveying about the large size and influence of religious nonprofits. The chapter became more interesting when it addressed what we discussed last week in lecture: the separation of church and state. I have a general understanding of the issue and who congregations get their funding from, but I was confused as to how it is possible for church and state to be separated, yet “Churches get…10 to 15 percent of their revenue from other sources, such as government grants and contracts…and net profit from auxiliary services” (59). If the government can give grants to nonprofits with religious affiliations, why do they not have to report to the IRS; why aren’t religious nonprofits subject to the same rules as other nonprofits? Also, what “auxiliary services” to churches provide that allow them to accumulate profit? I do not believe that in requiring churches to report to the IRS (the same as any other nonprofit organization), the government would be guilty of any “excessive entanglement” (70).  I have included a video that gives an example of this very issue and mentions a few groups who feel very passionately about the subject. One such group is a nonprofit called Americans United for Separation of Church and State: http://www.au.org/about/ . 

“Charitable Deduction Under Scrutiny” by Suzanne Perry discussed the matter of taking away the tax-exempt and tax-deductible status of nonprofits in the name of decreasing the country’s debt. While taking away tax deductions for charitable donations and organizations might lessen the debt (that, arguably, was accumulated by no fault of the general public), it might also lessen the amount of aid, in turn, placing the burden on the government to spend more money on social services, which would be counter productive. 

The shortest article, “Estate Tax and Charitable Giving” from Philantopic, presented some very important questions, showing that, although the nonprofit sector is thought of as an entity separated from business and government, it is impacted by what is going on in those arenas. This interdependence is further demonstrated in Harford’s article, “Even in a recession, charitable giving can go up as well as down,” that focused on the how the economic recession may effect the future of the nonprofit sector. Harford didn't seem convinced that the future of donations looked bright. What caught my attention was that one of Harford’s sources was Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the UO. Fall term Slovic gave a lecture in my INTL 199 course about what motivates people to feel, care, and/or be proactive in regards to human suffering. The work he does and the conclusions he has reached are extremely interesting. For example, his theories and experiments on “warm glow” and the ineffectiveness of statistics to evoke emotion have huge implications for the nonprofit sector regarding how organizations can get people to care. 

Lastly, creating a system through which the effectiveness of nonprofits could be measured and somehow rated was addressed by Dan Pallotta’s blog: “Our Ineffectiveness at Measuring Effectiveness”. Pallotta brought up the potential of quantifying the effectiveness of nonprofits to be a bad thing because, “everything will be reduced to numbers…instead of dynamic story-telling content”. This point relates to Paul Slovic's studies, which prove that the personalization (such as individual story telling) of events make people much more likely to care about, and donate to, a cause. Also, it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to universally measure effectiveness of nonprofits. If there was a rating system, high rated nonprofits could receive more attention, causing people to potentially neglect other nonprofits who maybe tackle issues that are harder to measure or are seen as less important to the majority of people. Pallotta expresses this same concern when he states: “we’ll create a market around the problems that are easiest to solve…[it is] much easier to serve soup and measure your effectiveness than to try and end homelessness and measure that”. In Perry’s article there was an important quote from Tim Delaney which stresses that within such discussions regarding the future of the nonprofit, it is imperative not to lose sight of what is really important: "We shouldn't be asking whether nonprofits will be hurt by some of these proposals," he says, "but whether the people we as nonprofits serve would benefit or suffer." 

Introductory Post

Hello! I am Monica and the purpose of this blog is to share information and my opinions on PPPM 280: Introduction to Nonprofit Sector. I am a sophomore and recently got accepted as an International Studies major. Within the major, my current focus is declared as Environment; however, I am also very interested in numerous other professional concentration areas, such as Diplomacy, Law, and International Relations and International Nonprofit Management. Thus, I am taking PPPM 280 to find out more about the Nonprofit Sector. I have a very general idea of what the nonprofit sector is, but I am hoping this course will expand upon that knowledge as well as help me decide whether or not I want to further pursue coursework related to the nonprofit sector.

My experience with nonprofit organizations is pretty limited. In high school I was a part of the National Honors Society, which required me to volunteer with a number of nonprofits including the local animal shelter and food closet and Project Santa Claus. I also traveled as a People to People Student Ambassador. Although the program is not a technically a nonprofit because they recently joined with a sister program to help market themselves, People to People was started as a nonprofit by President Eisenhower. I traveled as an Ambassador to France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji, and the experiences I had during the program were life changing. I realize the potential of nonprofit organizations to effect positive change and that is very exciting and inspirational.

Gaining a historical perspective on the nonprofit sector was much more interesting than I originally imagined. I never realized that it could be traced back to today's most prestigious universities and American history's wealthiest and most famous people. One example is the establishment of free libraries by Ben Franklin. This topic was particularly interesting to me because of its implications for people of moderate means. With access to libraries comes access to literacy for people other than white, male, Anglo Saxon Protestants. With the knowledge that accompanies reading, people had the means to better their lives. Not only were job opportunities opened, but people could also read which rights do and do not exist and have the ability to judge whether or not those rights were being violated. Many other actions in the name of philanthropy lead to such advancement of underprivileged people. Such philanthropy, however, did not come without speculations or controversy.

In a time where charity was not prevalent, many saw the search for charitable donations as begging. Some also saw the upward mobility that philanthropy sometimes facilitated as a threat to their own financial and social status security. In lecture, when Professor Choquette shifted from history and began talking about legislation pertaining to philanthropy, he brought up a modern controversy that surrounds the question of whether or not charitable donations should be taxed.

People had varying opinions on the subject, but I think the fact that people can write off charitable donations in their taxes is a very good thing. Because legislation prevents nonprofits from being able to contribute funds to a candidate’s political campaign, it can be assumed that any donated money is money wisely used, for it will probably help more than it will harm. Bill Gates donates millions of dollars every year to nonprofit organizations around the world in the name of issues like health, development, and education. There is no doubt that his donations haven’t had profoundly positive impacts on thousands, if not millions, of lives. It is possible that, because he has so much money, he would have donated it anyway, but doesn’t a tax cut add that much more incentive? And, yes, the taxable money could have gone to the government for them to use, but many do not trust the government or share the same priorities for use of the money. The nonprofit sector has the potential to effect change at many levels and in diverse areas that the government does not have the resources to address. Thus, I believe that by providing a tax cut for charitable donations, the government supports the potential of the nonprofit by incentivizing donations at both the large and small scale.